Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:What's the new DUI? (Score 3, Insightful) 36

If somebody in your back seat reaches forward, grabs the steering wheel, and forces you to get into an accident, who is liable? You, because you didn't stop them? The car maker, because they didn't prevent anybody but the driver from grabbing the steering wheel?

The hacker is obviously the liable party.

Comment Re:They didn't tolerate intolerance (Score 4, Interesting) 657

Aha, I figured it out. I've been trying to figure out what kind of point you were even trying to make, as it seems like you've been trying to argue that you're not a hypocrite if you're doing it for moral reasons, and you've been doing so by trying to trick me into saying the magical words "free speech" so that you can trot out the typical censorship-apologist line about how it's only illegal if the government does it, and then you can try to convince everybody that because it's not illegal for private entities to do it, it must be moral...

But I didn't actually say "free speech," nor did I imply what the companies in question are doing was illegal at all, and you're going off on a tanget and putting lots of words into my mouth. Stop it.

Let me try to clear up the cognitive dissonance you're going through right now. You've always been told that, as an American, free speech is paramount. On the other hand, you believe that when somebody says something you think is immoral, it's your job to stop them. You don't like being labeled a hypocrite; you internally associate that with being bad because you've been raised to believe that suppressing speech is bad, and you don't want to acknowledge that's what you're doing. Internally you realize that it's true, so rather than acknowledge the dissonance you're doing your best to convince everybody that it's not hypocrisy if you're doing it for moral reasons.

What the companies in question (and you) are doing is perfectly legal, and possibly even morally correct, but I haven't commented on that at all. It's still hypocrisy. Stop trying to weasel out of it.

Comment Re:They didn't tolerate intolerance (Score 1) 657

If you have evidence that somebody is "purposefully spamming deliberate lies," that's libel and you should go through the appropriate legal channels. The purpose of a business is to make money, not to enforce morality. But you're not a hypocrite unless you claim to support those peoples' speech at the same time that you're taking action against it.

Comment I just love it when somebody says... (Score 5, Informative) 657

"While everyone has a right to express his or her political opinion", because the second part to that sentence always comes out being something like, "we don't think this person should be able to express theirs."

Also apparently Luckey's girlfriend has been harassed off of Twitter, and you'll get banned from NeoGaf if you suggest that maybe she shouldn't be harassed. Stay classy, internet.

Comment Re:This is why I still use a flip-phone. (Score 1) 395

GPS with full spectra is accurate to 0.1 meters

Are you talking about RTK / CPGPS? I'd love it if you could show me a consumer cell phone that's capable of that. Every cell phone I've ever seen is lucky to get 3 m accuracy when it's outside and quickly degrades to >10 m indoors.

As to deets on in-building, there are tons of scientific papers on this, grandpa.

But you can't actually produce any at the moment, of course.

Comment Re:This is why I still use a flip-phone. (Score 1) 395

We can locate you within a meter based on cell tower logs, actually

Would you care to share the whitepaper describing how to get sub-meter accuracy from cell tower triangulation? As somebody who has actually done radio direction finding for a living I was under the impression that cell tower triangulation was considerably less accurate than GPS -- usually to within about 3/4 of a square mile.

If it's so accurate, why do cell phones even bother using GPS, which is accurate to about 3 meters if you're lucky?

Comment It is racist, and has been debunked (Score 1) 314

> As an example, you say that this study from a Canadian university is racist and has been debunked extensively, which is clearly total bullshit.

The study was published in "Intelligence", which is a journal for the "International Society for Intelligence Research."

A quick google for "International Society for Intelligence Research racist" shows that recipients of it's "lifetime achievement award" and board members are widely criticized as promoting junk science, white supremacy, and furthering nazi concepts on race.

Let's take a look at some examples.

According to sociocultural anthropologist Francisco Gil-White, in publishing studies financed by the Pioneer Fund, Linda Gottfredson is part of a concerted effort to legitimize racist ideology through pseudo-science, together with an assortment of other people with inadequate or completely missing scientific qualifications for studying human intelligence"

Rushton has been discredited for over thirty years and he's viewed as nothing more than pseudo-science fuel for white supremacists like you.

And his co-author on that paper? An idiot who thinks racists like him are "the next galileos."

He's so desperate to spread his bullshit that he paid to have a booklet about his work mailed to professors around the country

Comment Rushton is a known and discredited racist (Score 3, Insightful) 314

Rushton is a racist - this is both well known and extensively documented by comments he's made publicly and white supremacy publications he's contributed to. His science is beyond junk.

The man has been repeatedly and thoroughly discredited scientifically as ignoring evidence that doesn't fit his prejudices, his testing methods as biased against black people, and using non-equivalent groups.

He was president of an institute classified as a hate group. He speaks routinely at eugenics conferences and has published articles in white supremacy magazines and online websites.

Comment Re:If you're refusing a refund ... (Score 1) 467

NMS promised a lot of things you cannot possibly test in the first few hours of grind and surprise these things are missing.

That's true, but five hours is still enough time to tell whether you're having fun or not. If you force yourself to push through something you're not enjoying for five hours just because you're hoping it'll get good, you're a sucker.

Slashdot Top Deals

I'm still waiting for the advent of the computer science groupie.